Hard Qweschins: What the TradMedia Will Never Ask McCain, But Should

/in /by

I shared this news…

A federal judge says the University of California can deny course credit to applicants from Christian high schools whose textbooks declare the Bible infallible and reject evolution.

…with some folks, and Peterr said, "I really hope someone asks John McCain for his opinion on this."

Peterr is right: asking McCain for comment would make him choose between alienating the GOP base or speaking what he might still believe to be the truth, that science is science.

Peterr’s comment got me thinking about all the other things I’ve wished McCain would be asked about.

For example, why hasn’t anyone asked McCain whether he agrees with VA head James Peake’s policy of prohibiting non-partisan voter registration in VA hospitals?

"VA remains opposed to becoming a voter registration agency pursuant to the National Voter Registration Act, as this designation would divert substantial resources from our primary mission," Peake said in an April 8 letter to Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass. He was referring to a 1993 federal law that allows government agencies to host voter registration efforts.

[snip]

"You’d think that when so many people give speeches about keeping faith with our veterans, the least the government would do is protect their right to vote, after they volunteered to go thousands of miles from home to fight and give that right to others," Kerry said. "And yet we’ve seen the government itself block veterans from registering to vote in VA facilities, without any legal basis or rational explanation.

Veterans are already hammering McCain for voting against veterans benefits repeatedly; McCain can ill afford to alienate veterans further. But this policy was undoubtedly put into place by Peake to shield McCain and other Republicans from the wrath of veterans who have been badly treated by the Bush Administration.

And, as a MI resident, I have wished someone would ask McCain whether he agrees with Bush’s decision to fire the Mid-West’s regional EPA Administrator because she wanted to force Dow Chemical to clean up a mess it made in Midland, MI.

The top U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Midwest resigned Thursday amid internal fights over dioxin contamination near Dow Chemical Co.’s world headquarters in Midland, according to a published report.

Mary Gade, regional administrator of EPA Region 5, told the Chicago Tribune she resigned as regional administrator of EPA Region 5 after two top EPA officials stripped her of her powers and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.

For all his blathering about environmental issues, McCain is still overwhelmingly pro-corporate, so he’s probably happy that the Bush Administration put Dow’s profits over people living with the effects of its contamination. But the Midland-Saginaw area is fairly populous, and it could make a difference in MI this year.

Though of course, why be provincial? While we’re talking about environmental issues, has anyone heard a reporter ask McCain (and Obama) what they think about Bush’s latest attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act? It seems fair to ask whether, if he were President, McCain would also trade polar bears and other species for inaction on global warming.

Those are just a few examples that have been bugging me. What about you? What questions–aside from questions about whether extramarital affairs disqualify someone from being President–ought McCain to be asked? 

  1. wavpeac says:

    I have lost hope that these questions will ever be asked in a public setting by our corporate owned media. I just thinking that those with the biggest microphones (do they even use those today?) will not ask these questions of him. It just isn’t going to happen in a powerful setting because they are actively protecting him.

  2. klynn says:

    This was posted the other day at TPM from a TPM reader who is a Republican, sort of…

    …McCain has never been President.Bush has, and so far it seems to me that Obama’s campaign has rather taken for granted Bush’s unpopularity and its usefulness in helping Obama overcome voters’ uncertainty toward his candidacy. Moreover, Obama’s rote linkages of McCain to “Bush’s failed policies” are delivered in a way that demands nothing of McCain. Specifically, they don’t put McCain in the position of having to either defend Bush or agree with Obama’s criticism: the former identifying him further with the unpopular President, the latter antagonizing Bush’s admirers in the GOP base, most of whom don’t like McCain to begin with. Finally, Bush will never be provoked into answering attacks from Obama if all Obama’s attacks are aimed at McCain, and provoking Bush should be an Obama campaign objective.

    (my bold)

    read here:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/207840.php
    I think asking McCain ANY, “Why?” question to any Bush policy McCain supported would be a good question…

  3. AZ Matt says:

    Ask the McBush is thought on Mukasey’s idea about law-breaking. The NYT’s editorial weren’t too impressed: Mr. Mukasey in Denial

    …

    The Justice Department’s inspector general and its ethics office have issued a pair of reports confirming that top aides to Mr. Gonzales improperly used political litmus tests to fill nonpolitical positions. The politics was remarkably crude. One example: a career terrorism prosecutor was turned down for a counterterrorism position because his wife was an active Democrat.

    Mr. Mukasey told the American Bar Association that he did not see any crimes to prosecute. “Not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime,” he said. In any case, the wrongdoers have been punished, he claimed, by “substantial negative publicity.”

    The inspector general’s analysis of hiring practices lends credibility to even more disturbing claims that politically chosen prosecutors pursued politically motivated prosecutions

    …

    So, McBush, where do you stand on non-criminal law breaking?

    • klynn says:

      Follow-up to that Q:

      And what do think would be a sound punishment to state in revised legislation on the Hatch Act so that intentional, systemic violations which end up creating a legal atmosphere which in turn support violations of the Constitution would be detered?

      Follow-up to that Q:

      Senator McCain, what will you on your first day of office, should you get elected, to “clean” up the DOJ and make sure it is an institution which will uphold the US rule of law for all three branches of government in a non-partisan fashion? How will you eliminate “partisan hires” from the Bush administration which still are working in the DOJ?

    • PetePierce says:

      There has been much written about the Hatch Act. But the fact remains that if Mukasey weren’t there, and when he is gone, Goodling, Sampson and Williams who lied to Congress and lied to DOJ attorneys can be federally prosecuted.

      I do not see, Hatch Act not withstanding, how Goodling cannot be prosecuted by the provision in 18USC 1001 for lying to a US agency. She clearly has lied to lawyers for DOJ in sn investigation, as well as to Congress, and this is prosecuted hundreds of times a week in the 94 US district courts.

      TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 Statements or entries generally

      (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

      (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
      (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
      shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
      (b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
      (c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
      (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

      (2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

  4. alank says:

    Question: What’s it like being an asshole?

    That’s an interesting decision taken by the judge in behalf of Univ of Calif. Stuff will hit the fan over that one, I expect, although California isn’t Kansas.

  5. WilliamOckham says:

    There’s one way to get the TradMed (does that rhyme with bed or bead?) to ask these questions and other questions. Harry Reid can bring this stuff up for a vote in the Senate. You can get almost anything put in to a non-binding resolution (cf. MoveOn-Petraeus resolution). The vet voter registration issue should probably be first. You’d have great footage of Webb haranguing McCain from the well of the Senate. I bet they could even talk Hagel into that one. Nothing like a little grunt vs. flyboy animosity.

    Levin and Stabenow could introduce a resolution about the EPA firing. The Dems need to put McCain on his heels in battleground states. There should be legislation about the DHL deal while were at it.

    I’d like to see a resolution that specifically says ‘No permanent bases in Iraq’. McCain’s got almost no support on that one.

    The list goes on and on, but the Dems, unlike the Republicans, have never figured out that politics is a team sport.

    • Nell says:

      The VA voter registration issue is a perfect one for the kind of debate WO envisions. It’s outrageous that they won’t even allow nonpartisan registration drives in the facilities.

      The linked article doesn’t even go far enough in showing the blatant unfairness of the VA’s policy. The comparison to motor-vehicle and food-stamps registration offerings is a pale one: many of the vets are in the VA facilities, or have moved nearby to enable treatment. Many of those men and women are not going to find it easy to vote absentee. Virginia, e.g., has very restrictive rules and local registrars are free to decide that the voter has moved and must re-register rather than allowing an absentee vote; meanwhile, the cutoff for new and re-registrations is a month before election day.

      This is an issue that should have the stuffing beaten out of it between now and early September. There’s only a month window after that for registration in many states.

  6. plunger says:

    Mr. McCain:

    It appears that Joe Lieberman (and by extension, Israel) is minding your every move. Is there any possibility that Joe Lieberman has not been pre-selected as your Vice President? Aren’t you just the front-man for Vice President Lieberman? Didn’t AIPAC select you as the useful idiot to package the Lieberman Vice Presidency?

    Remember this?

    JINSA presents an annual Distinguished Service Award, named in honor of the late-Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson to U.S. government leaders.

    Last year the recipient was General Peter Pace. This years recipient was none other the AIPAC Butt Boy and USS Liberty Coverup Specialist, JOHN McCain.

    http://www.dissidentvoice.org/…..es0712.htm

    Possible McCain-Lieberman Alliance

    Introducing McCain to a packed ball room of pro-Israel business executives, defense contractors, and Washington insiders, was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, fresh from being re-elected as an independent after losing the Democratic Party primary in Connecticut.

    Lieberman’s glowing tribute to his Republican colleague did not go unnoticed. “McCain-Lieberman? There’s something to that,” JINSA board member Morris J. Amitay told the crowd.

    http://www.newsmax.com/archive…..shtml?s=lh

  7. plunger says:

    Mr. McCain:

    Isn’t it true that part of Cheney’s assignment on behalf of his overlord, David Rockefeller, was to ensure that the OVP became the most powerful (above the law) position in all the land, even more powerful than the office of Potus? Wasn’t that done specifically with the understanding that the ONLY way to put Lieberman in the seat of ultimate power was to make the VP’s seat the most powerful?

    Isn’t that part of the “discernible reality” that Rove taunted Suskind about?

    Aren’t you really just a tool, John?

  8. Leen says:

    Lieberman is a dark shadow behind McCain…both are ready to

    Bomb Bomb IRAN

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

    Listen to McCain and this audience laugh about the possibility of killing some Iranians. We are one sick nation. And McCain’s insensitivities to the value of human life elsewhere are deeply disturbing.

    Sorry but I do not honor folks who have served in one immoral and illegal war and who push for more of the same.

    My question for McCain. Did you ever feel any guilt about killing innocent people in Vietnam?

  9. wavpeac says:

    I was watching several news shows last night (as I surf around if I cannot tolerate the stupidity in front of me) and was amazed to find that they never used the terms hatch act violations.(at least on the cnn segment I watched with wolfie) They never explained who had committed the violations. They never explained that all of these people quit thereby avoiding any consequences. They referred to it as doj political bias. I cannot get over the white washing. It literally makes me want to weep.

    I would hope that the first peice of business for Obama would be to regulate the media again. Put back the fairness doctrine, and split up the media moguls into smaller companies and create competition again.

    Or maybe there is a better alternative but right now, the only ones speaking to the average american voters are the television stations. And the white wash on the wrong doings of this administration are horrendous.

    My colleague at work said in response to the doj hatch act violations…”well Clinton fired over a 100 doj’s when he first got into office”. She has a master’s degree, but her husband watches fox news. She really doesn’t understand that she isn’t hearing the truth.

    She sent me an article the other day about how more troops were killed during the Carter and Clinton administrations. Now, the idiot who wrote the peice included a link to gov’t documents. When you check the link you find out that they have all the numbers turned around on the front page. It literally takes the stats from Bush and puts them under the Clinton administration and then the same for Carter and Reagan. Turns them around and presents them on the front page as if this is the truth. If you follow the link you have to page through lots of documentation to find the error. Which I did and sent back to her encouraging her to check the link.

    The misinformation being sent is propaganda at it’s finest, and because it fit her mindset she didn’t bother to check the link. It’s malicious to put out information like this purposely, knowing that they are perpetuating a lie. What is behind such an act, but unadulterated greed and zealotry?

    Evil. Truly Evil.

  10. Leen says:

    Another question for McCain.

    Would you be willing to invite highly respected blogger Marcy Wheeler to one of your press barbecues?

    You know so the American pubic can hear some tough questions asked of a presidential candidate

  11. masaccio says:

    The best reason to ask these questions is the physical response of McCain to hard questions. Sometimes he just stomps off, as he did when David Gregory asked him something I forget. Other times, his body language reveals his age, as when he tries to respond to the viag** question.

    The first response, stomping off, may be some evidence of sundowning. I don’t mean this in the technical sense, as a sign of Alzheimer’s, but it is a response common among older people, who have enough energy at the beginning of the day, but get cranky in the evening as the energy level runs low.

  13. Leen says:

    Senator McCain does it concern you that only 9% of the American public have any faith in congress?

    What role will lobbyist play in your administration if you are selected?

  14. MarieRoget says:

    Why don’t you drop out of the race now, before completely embarrassing yourself in a lopsided debate w/Barack Obama?
    (Oh sorry, rhetorical)

    It can be fun what “The Google” turns up, in this case a list of questions Time/CNN had for John McCain back in 7/04:

    10 Questions for John McCain

    • PetePierce says:

      Hillary is doing her damndest to make sure McCain has a chance by undermining Obama at every turn. And substantively they haven’t done diddly jack to campaign for him and won’t.

      After showing that she could not manage her own damn campaign and keep war from raging in it the entire time (see Atlantic Monthly Memos) she is now actively engaged at undermining Obama.

      The Frontrunner’s Fall

      Clinton Memos trying to plant idea Obama is not an American

      Her former aide Howard Wolfson fanned the divisive flames Monday on ABC News, arguing that Hillary would have beaten Obama in Iowa and become the nominee if John Edwards’s affair had come out last year — an assertion contradicted by a University of Iowa survey showing that far more Edwards supporters had Obama as their second choice.

      She’s obviously relishing Hillaryworld’s plans to have multiple rallies in Denver, to take out TV and print ads and to hold up signs in the hall that read “Denounce Nobama’s Coronation.”

      In a video of a closed California fund-raiser on July 31 that surfaced on YouTube, Hillary was clearly receptive to having her name put in nomination and a roll-call vote.

      She said she thought it would be good for party unity if her gals felt “that their voices are heard.” But that’s disingenuous. Hillary was the one who raised the roll-call idea at the end of May with Democrats, who were urging her to face the math. She said she wanted it for Chelsea, oblivious to how such a vote would dim Obama’s star turn. Ever since she stepped aside in June, she’s been telling people privately that there might have to be “a catharsis” at the convention, signaling she wants a Clinton crescendo.

      It is a mistake to have Hillary and Bill anywhere near Denver and they are doing zero to help and plenty to hurt the Democrats chances of taking the White House in January 2009.

      It’s a quintissential display of passive agressiveness, particularly with her conduct at private fund raisers captured on You Tube begging for $11 million bucks when she has over $150 million of her own money in the bank and telling people she thinks a roll call for her is great, and signs in the hall that read “Denounce Nobama’s Coronation.”

      It would have been better to put this language in the platform: “A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.”

      If you bankrupt and can’t run a campaing, you sure as hell can’t and won’t be running this country.

      The Clintons should be kept the hell out of Denver.

      • MarieRoget says:

        ???
        Pete, always appreciate yr comments & the links therein, but before I leave for the day, just would like to point out I was never a Hill supporter, here or anywhere else.

        TTFN

  17. R.H. Green says:

    I can’t pass up this opportunity to alert those here that aren’t already aware of it. Greenwald cited a blogger named chrisindc, who writes a blog called Inside-Out the Beltway. His recent post, called, “Serious”, is a comedic spoof that hilariously posed a circus act with McCainzo the clown. This scene has McCainzo pantomining a press conference in which clown reporters pretend to ask questions and McC pretends to answer them. Well worth the look. In addition I recommend a look at his recent “manifesto” he calls them, titled, “The Club”, a disqieting summary of our current polital theatre.

  18. foothillsmike says:

    Another question for McShame would be what his perception of women is given his running around, treatment of his first wife, bad jokes etc.

  19. 4jkb4ia says:

    The best policy is to ignore this poster, but

    a) McCain gets everything with Cantor that he gets with Lieberman, especially if Obama heads him off in the department of DLCism by picking Evan Bayh.

    b) It is a highly involved conspiracy to say that Cheney wanted Bush to be president so that Lieberman could be a powerful VP later, especially when Gore was given a great deal of responsibility in that job.

  21. 4jkb4ia says:

    I would try to ask McCain some question which makes very clear whether he would pick a Scalia-type judge or not.

    • PetePierce says:

      Is there any doubt whatsoever that McCain considers Scalia a paragon for S. Ct. picks? And there will be several of them in the next four years not to mention that Bush has appointed about 277 federalist society robots to the trial and appellate bench during the last 7.5 years and counting down.

      That seems to be lost on the Hillary Roll Call avengers and Camp Hillary trying to undermine the convention.

      Wednesday will be all Bill. The networks will rerun his churlish comments from Africa about Obama’s readiness to lead and his South Carolina meltdowns. TV will have more interest in a volcanic ex-president than a genteel veep choice.

      • 4jkb4ia says:

        It is widely known that McCain is firmly pro-life and agreed with Scalia on Boumediene. These are serious clues.
        I think what I am trying to get at is that McCain says he is for original intent, but there are ideological gradations there. You want to ask him a question which pertains to original intent and see him think it through, or not think it through. Unfortunately McCain’s competence to pick judges is about 10th as an issue in this election.

        • Leen says:

          McCain may be firmly pro fetus but he is not pro life. Pro life would mean supporting National health care, access to a higher education, living wages, and only starting a war when it is absolutely necessary.

          He certainly was not prolife when it came to the lives of the Vietnamese or the Iraqi people. Next on Lieberman and McCains kill list are the Iranian people

  22. bmaz says:

    Ask him if, other than Keating, there has ever been any other time that a legislative body or ethics agency thereof, has found that he acted improperly or criminally.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Demand that McCain make his complete military record available. McCain has repeatedly denied that illness exists where the odds suggest it does, some of which may be relevant to his continuing health. His military record would confirm or deny examples of his truthiness. Former NavSec John Lehman, for example, has belatedly claimed that McCain was to be awarded his admiral’s star; other contemporaries suggest that’s nonsense. Most importantly, it would inform us about his superiors’ assessments of his temper and his judgment. Those would be helpful clues to his current fitness, since the President’s job is two-thirds judgment and one-third perspiration.

      The chorus demanding access to this important data needn’t be as shrill as the neocons’ clamoring for Kerry’s similar record — or its deafening silence over Shrub’s. It ought to be just as persistent.

      • foothillsmike says:

        There is also some questions about his crashes and his having relationships w/ female subordinates.

  24. earlofhuntingdon says:

    If the TradMedia asked these questions, they’d have to buy their own ribs and booze, presenting them with an insurmountable conflict of interest. Better to Ooh and Aah about McCain’s septuagenarian manliness and presence of presidential mind than ask him off-script questions.

    Why, that would be like 1950’s TV host Arthur Godfrey famously emptying a packet of his sponsor’s dried soup on his television desk and comparing the one speck of chicken in the powder with the “chunks of chicken” claims on the label. A rare example of the entertainment industry even jokingly questioning its commercial or political sponsors.

  25. PetePierce says:

    Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton continues full force to do everything she possibly can to undermine Obama with the memos from Atlantic as proof she would, and her current actions and statements as proof she is (her supporters scraped $19,000 out of $52 million in July) which is a joke.

    Yes She Can and Yes She Is Undermining Obama’s Chances and Supporting McCain

    August 13, 2008
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Yes, She Can
    By MAUREEN DOWD
    WASHINGTON

    While Obama was spending three hours watching “The Dark Knight” five time zones away, and going to a fund-raiser featuring “Aloha attire” and Hawaiian pupus, Hillary was busy planning her convention.

    You can almost hear her mind whirring: She’s amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps. Like taking candy from a baby, except Beanpole Guy doesn’t eat candy. In just a couple of weeks, Bill and Hill were able to drag No Drama Obama into a swamp of Clinton drama.

    [edited for fair use]

    • brendanx says:

      It’s gauche to quote a Maureen Dowd column in its entirety on emptywheel’s site, unless it’s one about Judith Miller.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        I would say it’s droite, not gauche, to quote an entire column by MowDown. It’s also a tad too close to a copyright problem. (Even if the NYT is not the dreaded attack dog, the unmentionable A***P). Excerpts and links are informative, and less disruptive of the thread.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Citing Dowd-the-Destructor as evidence of a factual claim — let alone on a matter concerning the Clintons (or about anyone who would rather go on the wagon than buy her a drink) — is like citing Bush on decision making or Cheney on candor. It’s not the best evidence.

      • PetePierce says:

        Nope Earl. Althought it’s in vogue for FDLakers to say so, Dowd is right on target as to what Hillary is doing and I’m accurate in sighting her.

        Enjoy the Pinnochios. It’s called a camera Earl, not Mo Dowd and the camera ain’t lyin’.

        The Audacity of Cynicism/Hillary Undermining Obama and Lying–that’s spelled LYING

        On July 31, at a fund raiser in California, Hillary did in fact, encourage a roll call vote for her Hillariness. No one made that up and only you and your opthalmologist know if you can see it:

        Hillary Stumping for a Roll Call Vote for HER at the Convention in Denver Captured on Video

        Hillary Asking for Roll Call–Is She a Living Bobble Head Doll?

        And I also linked the exact memos from Hillary’s campaign verbatim–and what that’s like is citing the exact words from Penn and Hillary–so no analogies you want to invoke cutely are going to hold water there.

        I understand Maureen Dowd has pissed off a lot of people, particularly the FDLakers, but she also has the facts right most of the time and she sure as hell is accurate as to Bill and Hillary’s conduct in Obama’s campaign.

        I didn’t site Dowd as evidence–not one scintilla. I quoted her column which cited You Tube of Hillary at a private fund raiser as evidence encouraging her Hilliranistas to undermine Obama at the convention by seeking a vote and holding up “Nobama” signs at the convention.

        When you have a borderline personality (and Hillary is textbook DSMIV Borderline and textbook John Gunderson’s definitions of Borderline–one of the foremost experts in the world on treating Borderline personalities) they will exhibit precisely the behavior Hillary is exhibiting.

        Instead of the analogy however, and I think your posts are awfully fact driven when I read them, I welcome you to tell me how Maureen Dowd is wrong in this column about the Clintons or if you think the article from Atlantic with the memos quoted for the first time in public are fictional.

        If you’re into facts Earl, let me know what you think are in the

        1) 2007 Clinton Tax Returns
        2) The Foundation Contributors Criminal Backgrounds and Arms Deals, and Illegal Deals
        3) The Library Contributors Criminal Backgrounds, Arms Deals, and Illegal Deals

        Why are they being kept secret???? Obama asked her to vet them when he booted her as veep.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I’m accurate in sighting her

          .

          I beg to differ; I wouldn’t cite Miss Dowd as proof of any contention except her continuing decline. Unlike Miss Dowd, you’re capable of correcting the obvious.

        • PetePierce says:

          Earl what’s your eyesight? I’m skipping Dowd for you and going straight to the source–Clinton herself on video tape.

          I linked the memos from Atlantic Monthly and I linked You Tubes of Clinton that support what Ms. Dowd quoted and quoted accurately.

          Forget Maureen Dowd. I understand she gets under your skin because she skewers someone you don’t want skewered.

          I’ll try the same tack I try with people I want to stop smoking when I say forget you have lungs and then trot out the coronary artery occlusion stats>MIs>CVAs as a result of smoking more than a pack a day over age 40.

          Forget Dowd exists. Tell me that these You Tubes don’t have Clinton trying to undermine Obama with a roll call; have her asking for signs at the convention from her supporters that are detrimental to Obama using the words “Nobama” and one of the You Tubes has the greatest hits where Clinton bold face lies.

          And btw do you expect Bill to power point his 2007 Income Tax Returns, the Foundation Contributors, or the Library Contributors and the illegal deals he participated in with them, including the rides on the Burkle plane with the convicted sexual molester of under aged girls? Because I don’t.

          Once more with feeling for your eyes (no Dowd is present in this documentation):

          Hillary: Let’s All Fuck Obama I You Tube

          Hillary Let’s All Fuck Obama II You Tube

          Again Earl, these are videos I’m linking, not anything Maureen Dowd. But the videos do proove that Maureen Dowd cited them accurately. They also take your excuse to bash Dowd out of the equation, and underscore she got her facts right. You can proceed to argue that it’s a Hillary impersonator in the Videos if you like. And you can argue she underwent thoracic surgery after being hit by sniper fire if you like. And you can argue Brett Favre didn’t throw an interception last year that knocked them out of the playoffs or he isn’t a Jet if you like. Feel free.

          Clinton Memos Written by Penn, Doyle, and Ickes Writ Large Not Dowd

          This information was gathered by Josh Green, at Atlantic and contains actual memos handed over by the Clinton staff:

          To find out, I approached a number of current and former Clinton staffers and outside consultants and asked them to share memos, e-mails, meeting minutes, diaries—anything that would offer a contemporaneous account. The result demonstrates that paranoid dysfunction breeds the impulse to hoard. Everything from major strategic plans to bitchy staff e-mail feuds was handed over. (See for yourself: much of it is posted online at http://www.theatlantic.com/clinton.)

        • PetePierce says:

          I beg to differ; I wouldn’t cite Miss Dowd as proof of any contention except her continuing decline. Unlike Miss Dowd, you’re capable of correcting the obvious.

          Great! I directly linked the You Tubes proving what I said was right. Feel free to argue the You Tubes don’t exist or they aren’t the 200 millionairess begging for money when she could easily pay her debts but like rich bitch Helmsely is stiffing little business people all over the country right now because she won’t tap her illicitly gained fortune.

      • PetePierce says:

        I’m accurate in

        citing

        and sighting Dowd, and I’ve prooved her correct with two videos in fact.

        Those are my cites. It’s like citing video tape of what she actually said and the Atlantic memos are the written words she and Penn actually said.

        If you can’t hold your campaign together, you can’t run the country and she isn’t and won’t.

  26. QuickSilver says:

    Senator McCain, having been tortured (and having signed a false confession yourself) do you believe torture is effective?

    Why did you lend critical support to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (in October 2006) — not only indemnifying ongoing torture practices, but giving a nine-year retroactive immunity to those who committed or ordered acts of torture?

  27. presquevu says:

    Do you think most of your base oppose abortion because
    (a) aborting the fetuses of white people contributes to “our” being outnumbered?
    (b) they believe they are being taxed to pay for aborting the fetuses of non-white people?
    (c) all of the above?

    How many women have you had relations with outside of marriage? How many were hookers? How many lobbyists? How many hookers whose services were provided by lobbyists? Did any pregnancies result from any of these unions?

    Did you participate in Tailhook-type sexual harrassment while in the Navy?

    How many racist and sexist jokes would you estimate you have told as an adult?

    What medications are you on?

    How do you explain being given one of the most coveted assignments in the Navy after graduating near the very bottom of your class? Do you feel entitled to the Presidency on the same basis?

  28. brendanx says:

    Ask him the names of the prime ministers or presidents of three reasonably significant countries.

    • PetePierce says:

      Ask him how many cert. votes it takes to get oral argument in the Supreme Court or the difference in cert. votes and Cert mints. He can’t tell you.

      Ask him how many times he voted with Bush in the last eight years and what the percentage is per year.

      Ask him to explain the current occupation of Georgia and the ignoring of the case fire–he doesn’t have a clue what’s going on.

      McCain’s solution to every foreign policy problem is to send US troops in–even though the Armed Forces has been badly broken for some time.

      At every opportunity McCain has voted to deny benefits to said troops–medical, financial, and education and paradoxically while he IDs himself as the Vet of all Vets, he has no plan to substantively help vets. It has been a hallmark of Bush’s administration while he has resisted a draft and sent the same vets in to be grinded down repeatedly in Iraq, and now Afganistan, he has done nothing to get them decent health care, educational benefits or employment benefits after he has sucked the life out of their careers and marriages.

      And don’t fool yourself–chronic medical care in the VAH system is in the shitter. It compares at times to the incompetent care in BOP and INS contract facilities that Bmaz was bemoaning last night when he cited the NYT article on the immigrant with the wide spread mets to the L-Spine and crushed vertebrae who was being tortured to death in the INS contract facility which goes on every single day in BOP, INS, ICE facilities and the county jails and city jails where they hold prisoners by contract.

        • PetePierce says:

          You’ll notice now, that “straight talk express” McCain for weeks has carefully avoided (along with his lobbyist handlers) taking any questions at all from the press or any spontaneous questions. As the Rove deciples and Bush people have taken control of his campaign, he is paralleling the pattern Bush used.

          And of course it would be embarassing for McCain to be asked most questions that are basic to constitutional law. He’s been having trouble sorting out countries in the latest Russian-Georgia clash and factions in Iraq.

          I find it amazing that the MSM (or maybe not) doesn’t pick up on how idiotic the statements are from McCain’s Mini Me aka Joe Lieberman have been. Lieberman continues to get top himself with ridiculous assertions.

        • brendanx says:

          His mental condition is also deteriorating. He can be pinned with any question on a point of fact at this point.

  30. PetePierce says:

    I understand that Marie. I wasn’t IDing you as one, but wanted to point out that on a scale simply labled as very helpful at the right end of the line, and undermining at every chance at the left, the dial is all the way to the left.

    And as to John Edwards (whose many talents and previous prosects as a major cabinet member or member of the judiciary are being crushed now by cries of “love child” as people come out of the woodwork to document his affair, as MODO correctly says:

    Her former aide Howard Wolfson fanned the divisive flames Monday on ABC News, arguing that Hillary would have beaten Obama in Iowa and become the nominee if John Edwards’s affair had come out last year — an assertion contradicted by a University of Iowa survey showing that far more Edwards supporters had Obama as their second choice.

    From what I can tell, although it is a bit subjective, from the comments at FDL/EW, that statement reflects the majority of the commenters.

  31. 4jkb4ia says:

    Now I will disrupt the thread and say that Bill may not harm the situation. Bill may give a great rousing speech as only he can, and it will be perceived better than if it was for his wife. And I have to stop reading Maureen Dowd columns.

    • PetePierce says:

      Your not reading them won’t change the facts when she quotes the You Tubes I’ve put in front of your eyes. But you’re welcome to do the “I’m not seeing the You Tubes” bit and the “I’m not reading the Atlantic memos bit.

      Whether you read them or not doesn’t change the facts she sited supported by the You Tubes I linked of Hillary asking for a Roll Call and lying about seventy-eleventy times.

  32. brendanx says:

    This is the question McCain is, in fact, now being asked (CNN): What are you going to do about it?

    “Yesterday, I heard Sen. McCain say, ‘We are all Georgians now,’” Saakashvili said on CNN’s American Morning. “Well, very nice, you know, very cheering for us to hear that, but OK, it’s time to pass from this. From words to deeds.”

    I assume Saakashvili cleared this with Scheunemann and McCain and that McCain’s inevitably insane response will drag the media and Obama in its wake.

  33. PetePierce says:

    Of interest but admittedly OT to this thread but more the subject of the one before it:

    As I think we’ve all suspected Mukasey promised Bush and Cheney he would never appoint a Special Counsel. And remember that Scott Horton for years was a member of the same law firm where Mukasey practiced before and after he was on the SDNY bench.

    Scott Horton August 12:

    Prior to his confirmation, Michael Mukasey fessed up, in a written response to Senator Dick Durbin, to a meeting the White House arranged with a group of movement conservatives. The team he met with had a simple agenda: They wanted his assurance that he would not appoint special prosecutors to go after administration figures involved in serious scandals at the Justice Department, including the U.S. attorneys scandal and the introduction of torture with formal Justice Department cover, and they wanted his assurance that Justice would continue to provide legal cover to “the Program.” The team who met Mukasey included figures on the periphery of the scandal who may have had personal reasons to fear an investigation. But Mukasey is clearly keeping the understanding that brought him to the cherished post of attorney general. And that’s bad news for the Justice Department and its reputation.

    But the failure was systemic in that the system–the institution–failed to check the behavior of those who did wrong. There was a failure of supervision by senior officials in the Department. And there was a failure on the part of some employees to cry foul when they were aware, or should have been aware, of problems.

    Note how Mukasey plays the entire affair down and uses the traditional language of the criminal defendant–for him it was a “system failure.” His language is passive: things evidently just happened. But in fact a closer read of the Inspector General’s report shows that the figures involved and the schemes adopted had a clear provenance in the White House, and specifically in the warren of Karl Rove. The actors under investigation, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling, had come with Alberto Gonzales from the White House. They benefited from an extraordinary delegation of authority from Gonzales that allowed them, two thirty-somethings with little experience, to exercise the authority of the attorney general in the hiring and firing process. This didn’t “just happen.” It was the result of a careful plan for partisan entrenchment at Justice—consciously pursued in defiance of the law. A serious investigation would have focused on the senior figures responsible for this program. So what is the penalty for such a systematic violation of the law? Well, according to Mukasey, there isn’t one. Those involved have already suffered enough. Yes, they suffer because their misdeeds are now known.

    But in fact, the Justice Department didn’t willingly lay this bare. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth. Its instincts throughout the entire process were to cover up and lie about what was being done—as the inspector general documented in excruciating detail. And while Michael Mukasey praises the career professionals around him, the facts are that he has surrounded himself with political flacks who were deeply enmeshed in the cover up.

  36. brendanx says:

    I would ask McCain for details about when he’s spoken to his friend Saakashvili recently, and about what. Did he speak with him on July 12?

  37. Nequals1 says:

    FYI ScienceDebate 2008 website for progress to date of engaging the candidates in substantive science and technology policy and issues.

    The Questions

    On behalf of the American science and innovation community (see who here), we have submitted these questions to the candidates for President and asked them to do two simple things: A) provide a written response, which we will publish here, and B) discuss these questions in a nationally televised forum.

    1. Innovation. Science and technology have been responsible for half of the growth of the American economy since WWII. But several recent reports question America’s continued leadership in these vital areas. What policies will you support to ensure that America remains the world leader in innovation?

    2. Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on the following measures that have been proposed to address global climate change—a cap-and-trade system, a carbon tax, increased fuel-economy standards, or research? Are there other policies you would support?

    3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

    4. Education. A comparison of 15-year-olds in 30 wealthy nations found that average science scores among U.S. students ranked 17th, while average U.S. math scores ranked 24th. What role do you think the federal government should play in preparing K-12 students for the science and technology driven 21st Century?

    5. National Security. Science and technology are at the core of national security like never before. What is your view of how science and technology can best be used to ensure national security and where should we put our focus?

    6. Pandemics and Biosecurity. Some estimates suggest that if H5N1 Avian Flu becomes a pandemic it could kill more than 300 million people. In an era of constant and rapid international travel, what steps should the United States take to protect our population from global pandemics or deliberate biological attacks?

    7. Genetics research. The field of genetics has the potential to improve human health and nutrition, but many people are concerned about the effects of genetic modification both in humans and in agriculture. What is the right policy balance between the benefits of genetic advances and their potential risks?

    8. Stem cells. Stem cell research advocates say it may successfully lead to treatments for many chronic diseases and injuries, saving lives, but opponents argue that using embryos as a source for stem cells destroys human life. What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

    9. Ocean Health. Scientists estimate that some 75 percent of the world’s fisheries are in serious decline and habitats around the world like coral reefs are seriously threatened. What steps, if any, should the United States take during your presidency to protect ocean health?

    10. Water. Thirty-nine states expect some level of water shortage over the next decade, and scientific studies suggest that a majority of our water resources are at risk. What policies would you support to meet demand for water resources?

    11. Space. The study of Earth from space can yield important information about climate change; focus on the cosmos can advance our understanding of the universe; and manned space travel can help us inspire new generations of youth to go into science. Can we afford all of them? How would you prioritize space in your administration?

    12. Scientific Integrity. Many government scientists report political interference in their job. Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

    13. Research. For many years, Congress has recognized the importance of science and engineering research to realizing our national goals. Given that the next Congress will likely face spending constraints, what priority would you give to investment in basic research in upcoming budgets?

    14. Health. Americans are increasingly concerned with the cost, quality and availability of health care. How do you see science, research and technology contributing to improved health and quality of life?

  38. politicalhacker says:

    10 Lines of Questioning for John McCain

    1. Did you flip-flop your position on offshore drilling to facilitate 10 donations of $28,500 each by Hess Corporation executives and family members to the McCain Victory 2008 campaign fund? If not, is it just a coincidence that you received the donations days before you flip-flopped your position? Two of the $28,500 donations came from a Hess office manager and her husband, an Amtrak foreman, who rent a home in a lower middle class neighborhood in Flushing, Queens. Do you think campaign fraud has been perpetrated? If so, will you return the money?

    2. In 2002 and 2003, you voted to close the Enron loophole, saying at the time that “we’re all tainted” by Enron’s money. Since then, you’ve hired former Enron board of directors member Phil Gramm (who helped pass the Enron loophole), Enron loophole lobbyist Charlie Black, and anti-price gouging lobbyist Wayne Berman. Do you plan to introduce or vote to support legislation that closes the Enron loophole, despite your affiliation with beneficiaries and architects of the loophole?

    3. The one war you were directly involved in resulted in your imprisonment for 5 years and ended in failure. What specific experiences in your military or political career have taught you how to win wars?

    4. How many aircraft have you crashed while serving in the Navy? What’s the average number of aircraft Navy pilots crash in a career?

    5. Is it typical for a bottom-of-the-barrel Naval Academy graduate — who places 5th from the bottom of 899 — to be assigned duty as an aircraft carrier pilot? If not, did your position of privilege as the son and grand-son of 4 star admirals grant you unearned access?

    6. Given your experience as a prisoner of war and your apparent support for CIA torture, do you think torture works? Does it produce accurate intelligence? If so, were your confessions of war crimes in propaganda tapes and signed statements accurate? If not, what will you do to remove torture as a federally-sponsored activity?

    7. Did you leave Naval service for civil service because you knew you’d never earn the rank of Admiral? Senator William Cohen, Senator Gary Hart (both of whom participated in your weddings), Admiral Peter Booth, and Admiral John R. Batzler have suggested that you left Naval service for civil service because it was established that you’d never earn the rank of Admiral. Do you disagree with their assertions?

    8. Do you think presidential candidates’ spouses should receive media and public scrutiny? If so, can you comment on your wife’s felonious behavior in the 1990s, when she stole prescription drugs from a charitable organization to fuel her own drug addiction? Is there any correlation between Michelle Obama’s comment “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country…” and your comment “I really didn’t love America until I was deprived of her company”? Are you both unpatriotic traitors, or two people who realized through significant experiences what America has to offer?

    9. Given your admission of ignorance about economics and utter incompetence when attempting to answer related questions; your evident lack of general geographic knowledge of the Middle East and Europe; your confusion between Sunnis and Shiites; your mistaken time-lines of the Sunni Awakening and the surge; and, your endless flip-flops, what qualifies you to be President of the United States? Do your many recent gaffes suggest your incompetence, or is it a reflection of your old age and decreased mental acumen?

    10. Why have you decided to abandon your call to run a “respectful campaign”? Have you become desperate to win and see going negative as your only option? Do your trivial attack ads detract from the real issues facing our nation?